zenpundit.com

RECOMMENDED READING

A lengthy one, with ” nation-building”, pro and con, as a theme. Some comments to boot.

Dr. Barnett – “Nation building on our plate“

For those that follow theory, you can see where Tom has synthesized aspects of 4GW that critically impact the ability to carry out a Sys Admin action without adopting a Kaplanesque worldview.

Fabius Maximus at DNI – “What should we do in Iraq?Part II of a series“

(The first part was “Situation Report on the Expedition to Iraq“). Fabius Maximus offers a 4GW school counterpoint to Dr. Barnett, rejecting both “nation building” and connecting the Gap as a useful employment of American military power.

Gregory Scoblete at TCS – “What Rumsfeld’s Critics Don’t Get“

I have to endorse Greg’s take on Rumsfeld’s tenure at DoD and the ideological split between Rumsfeld and the second generation Neocons like Bill Kristol (despite Rummy being lumped together with them, he’s a Nixonian hardliner, not a neocon). I believe he has that nuance exactly right. One of those rare pieces of which I can say ” Hmmm – wish I had written that.” ( Big hat tip my friend Bruce Kesler who sends me many useful things).

Chirol at Coming Anarchy – “Corporate Armies“

Chirol spurred a wickedly interesting debate on PMC’s, Free Companies, mercenaries and nation-building by corporations.

raf at Aqoul – “Islamist Networks: The Afghan-Pakistan Connection“

raf reviews the work of Oliver Roy and Mariam Abou Zahab. I note that Aqoul is also a Weblog Award finalist.

I will now shift gears entirely in terms of topic:

Dan of tdaxp has a new, and as usual, excellent, series – Classrooms Evolved – for which he has already posted “Introduction: A Philosophy of Teaching“, ” PartI: Traditional Methods“,
“Part II: Social Grading” and “Part III: Deliberative Learning“

Dan offers many incisive criticisms of current practice – and some solutions. A must read for those in the classroom.

Dr. Von picks up where I left off with ” Physics is a Good Domain for Horizontal Thinking“

like Von, I’m an enthusiast for the ability of physics to shed light in the inner workings of many other domains, from economics to microbiology (so long as we avoid the simplification trying to reduce everything to mechanistic physics – an error of the Newtonian oriented philosophical determinists of the 19th century who were unaware of quantum mechanics or relativity).

That’s it !

ZENPUNDIT ASKS YOU TO CAST A VOTE FOR DAVE!!!!

My good friend Dave Schuler has had his excellent blog, The Glittering Eye nominated for ” Best Centrist Blog” in the 2006 Weblog Awards and he is now a finalist. Aside from being highly intelligent and a hell of a nice guy, Dave is a first rate blogger, which is why it is no surprise to me that he has been a finalist for two years running.

Dave however has some very stiff competition in this category and he needs your support. If you are a regular reader and have enjoyed my posts, I have a small favor to ask in return: when you visit Zenpundit, take a second and vote for The Glittering Eye. If everyone does that then we can swiftly put Dave into the running ( you may vote once per day).

Cast your vote for The Glittering Eye !

Much thanks to all who take the time to click !

VERTICAL THINKING: BEST DOMAIN FOR SHAPING A MIND?

Horizontal thinking is often most productive when it begins from a platform of expertise in a given field, using the accumulation of knowledge and vertical thinking skills as a platform to see patterns and analogies across domains. The question is, what is the best ” platform” ? here are some possibilities, broadly defined, for consideration:

Physics

Mathematics

History

Philosophy

Law

The Arts

Classical Liberal Education

Each would appear to offer some distinct advantages in terms of inculcating cognitive habits and frames of interpretation.

Mathematics offers rigor, precision in conceiving problems and at a certain level, the capacity to construct algorithmic models. Philosophy directs out attention toward our own epistemology, metaphysics and logical reasoning. History offers the largest collection of reference points and a methodology for establishing causation. Physics promotes a comprehension of the operation of massively complex systems, cause and effect and almost as much rigor as mathematics. The Law teaches the use logic, evidentiary consistency and accelerated, extemporaneous reasoning. The Arts require the type of intuitive, nonverbal, pattern recognittion and synthesizing thinking that are conistent with good horizontal thought. Liberal education partakes of all of these to some extent and imparts skepticism in the student.

While I naturally incline toward history my respect for the arts and physics stand very high. If I had to go back in time, I can say I’d take far more physics the second time around. Where do you stand ?

IRAQ STUDY GROUP REPORT

Iraq Study Group Report

More later…

UPDATE:

Having gone through the ISG report at breakneck speed, I have a few comments on this document and its nature.

First, I would suggest that anyone who reads it, and wishes to understand it’s actual purpose should begin with the last page and work forward.

Secondly, there are many people on the right becoming quite exercised (or the left celebratory) about some of the language used in the report or the recommendations being “surrenderist”. Or implicitly rebuking Bush. Or the Neocons. Or the military Or Israel. Or whatever.

Well, my advice is to calm down, at least for the moment. Some recommendations are excellent and long overdue, such as establishing interagency “operational jointness” on the Goldwater-Nichols model. Others are merely common sense. Some would appear to be, superficially, gratuitous concessions to our enemies. Or are even patent nonsense at odds with reality. However it doesn’t really matter. No particular point in this report is meant to be taken at face value per se but as a collection ( hence the stupendous laundry list -something for everyone). That’s not why the ISG was established or why the particular personnel associated with this project were selected with such obvious care.

The ISG was established because the Bush administration has completely paralyzed itself in Iraq and the first objectives in issuing this report are:

a) To open up the widest tactical options for the United States in Iraq and the ME as can be mustered.

b) To restore a consensus at the moral level for an American foreign policy and political elite that is badly divided along partisan lines as well as between subgroupings like ” realists”, “neocons” and ” antiwar critics”. This is a formal signalling for a “closing of ranks” at the top in the face of Iraq’s effective disintegration into sectarian anarchy.

The specifics of any given recommendation here matter a great deal less than communicating to other parties that a window of diplomatic oportunity with the United States has abruptly opened, a moment of uncertain duration. We will be making choices in Iraq and once America goes down a new path the window is going to slam shut as our new policy acquires a logic of momentum. That is what the ISG is about, not making the government of Iraq an effective partner in fighting al Qaida or stopping infiltration from Syria, neither of which is going to happen.

The former secretary of state, James A. Baker III, is not a strategist or an idealist. Baker is not even a tactician so much as he is a highly gifted, political, fixer. Despite his courtly demeanor and Beltway “gravitas”, Baker is the most ruthless bureaucratic infighter of our generation who has left dozens upon dozens of political corpses in the wake of his climb to the top with the Bush family. Baker has lined up the heavyweights of both parties behind the ISG in order to get the U.S. and President Bush out of a jam, not out of Iraq, though the latter will probably occur along the way.

Assessments[ Updated]:
Thomas P.M. Barnett, Robert Kaplan, tdaxp, Ralph Peters, Kobayashi Maru, Bruce Kesler, American Future, Abu Aardvark, Aqoul(raf) , Atlas Shrugged, Captain’s Quarters, Dean’s World, Kevin Drum, Redneck’s Revenge, Small Wars Council, Mountainrunner , Dreaming 5GW, Duck of Minerva, Rightwing Nut House , Don Surber, QandO, The Glittering Eye, Matthew Yglesias, Counterterrorism Blog, Hugh Hewitt

TUFTE ON VALIDATING HORIZONTAL THINKING

Though he himself did not put it that way. Here is a short post from Edward Tufte on “Metaphors, Analogies and Thought Mappings” where he makes a critical observation, followed by some comments from me:

“Roald Hoffmann has a fine essay in the recent American Scientist on metaphors, which he describes at one point as “thought mappings.” Hoffmann suggests that metaphors may be at times useful for (1) explaining technical results to a general audience and (2) achieving and understanding technical results.

Of course loose or strained metaphors notoriously produce loose thinking. “When a precise narrowly focused technical idea becomes metaphor and sprawls globally, its credibility must be earned afresh locally by means of specific evidence demonstrating the relevance and explanatory power of the idea in its new application. It is not enough for presenters to make ever-bolder puns, as meaning drifts into duplicity. Something has to be explained.” (Beautiful Evidence, p. 151). “

[Emphasis mine]

Tufte ignores the powerfully generative aspect of metaphors and analogies that inspired Hoffman, in favor of concentrating on their communicative utility. However Tufte brings focus to a frequently ignored point that the use of metaphors, parallels ana analogies across domains needs to be tested and validated. Vertical thinking field experts add value to the horizontal thinking process when you are speculating across domains. It may be that your insight from Art History will open up new vistas in molecular biology but if so, then your first stop should be with a molecular biologist.

Not every metaphor needs to achieve universal consilience to be ” true”. Often concepts will be valid within a body of cognate fields and a few unrelated domains that have some parallel dynamics or methodological tools ( such as modelling complex adaptive systems, for example). That’s a significant contribution in itself. Very few phenomena will ever have fundamental, proven, application to all fields of knowledge.